I'm still attempting to process what just happened to me in a class, so forgive me if I'm not explaining everything adequately.

I'm attending a Baptist seminary (not for the Mdiv, for their MA in Philosophy of Religion) where the professors have to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in addition to other stuff. They are held to this covenant. But apparently the covenant doesn't cover anything about the Incarnation...

In this class we ended up discussing St. Augustine's teaching on original sin in application to the Incarnation. Throughout the discussion, the professor hinted at some pretty nefarious things, so I went ahead and asked him point blank what he meant. He said, verbatim, "I deny the teaching of the dual wills of Christ and I have major problems with and do not accept the dual natures of Christ." Of course, I was shocked that in a place that values theologically correct professors that he was saying such at hint. What equally shocked me is that NO ONE in the class (some of whom are future pastors who are taking the class as an elective) saw a problem with this and/or didn't understand what was going on.

The prof said that via kenosis Christ emptied Himself of aspects of His divine nature, which explains why He was able to grow in knowledge, age, etc.

The thing is, I've seen this as a growing trend within certain Protestant circles. There seems to be a great ignorance on the Incarnation. That it's not infecting the academic level as a "conservative" seminary has left a sickening knot in my stomach.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and everything I've read on the Incarnation has been incorrect. I've read all the major works on the Incarnation from the Patristics and every single one seems to say that Christ has two natures and two wills (in fact, I interpreted St. Cyril of Jerusalem to kind of make this his main point). But maybe I've been wrong, maybe I've vastly misinterpreted all the teachings, everything I've heard in liturgy, and everything I've read. Of course, I mean this (somewhat) rhetorically, but being in a class full of people who didn't see an issue with what the professor said, I do have to wonder if I'm going a bit crazy.

I think I shall read some St. Athanasius for comfort...

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Did you find out any more details aboutvthis professor's christology? I mean, if not two wills, then which one? Only human? And what does he mean he cannot accept two natures? Does he think Christ was a mere man? And if so how do terms like incarnation or kenosis even apply?

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

I'm still attempting to process what just happened to me in a class, so forgive me if I'm not explaining everything adequately.

I'm attending a Baptist seminary (not for the Mdiv, for their MA in Philosophy of Religion) where the professors have to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in addition to other stuff. They are held to this covenant. But apparently the covenant doesn't cover anything about the Incarnation...

In this class we ended up discussing St. Augustine's teaching on original sin in application to the Incarnation. Throughout the discussion, the professor hinted at some pretty nefarious things, so I went ahead and asked him point blank what he meant. He said, verbatim, "I deny the teaching of the dual wills of Christ and I have major problems with and do not accept the dual natures of Christ." Of course, I was shocked that in a place that values theologically correct professors that he was saying such at hint. What equally shocked me is that NO ONE in the class (some of whom are future pastors who are taking the class as an elective) saw a problem with this and/or didn't understand what was going on.

The prof said that via kenosis Christ emptied Himself of aspects of His divine nature, which explains why He was able to grow in knowledge, age, etc.

The thing is, I've seen this as a growing trend within certain Protestant circles. There seems to be a great ignorance on the Incarnation. That it's not infecting the academic level as a "conservative" seminary has left a sickening knot in my stomach.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and everything I've read on the Incarnation has been incorrect. I've read all the major works on the Incarnation from the Patristics and every single one seems to say that Christ has two natures and two wills (in fact, I interpreted St. Cyril of Jerusalem to kind of make this his main point). But maybe I've been wrong, maybe I've vastly misinterpreted all the teachings, everything I've heard in liturgy, and everything I've read. Of course, I mean this (somewhat) rhetorically, but being in a class full of people who didn't see an issue with what the professor said, I do have to wonder if I'm going a bit crazy.

I think I shall read some St. Athanasius for comfort...

A) Why would you necessarily expect anything even remotely Orthodox from a Baptist seminary? If your there for a degree, get your degree, but when I got my degree at university I hardly expected the history department to necessarily agree with my own interpretations of African history let alone for us to come to commonality in regards to Orthodox theology

Get your paperwork and like Ralph Nader politely include some substanse to the debates in class while never actually entirely throwing your hat in with those folks, if you're Orthodox you are there to witness our Faith, not necessarily to convert neither be converted.

B) I couldn't exactly agree with the exact phrasing of your professor either, however that is precisely why we Ethiopian Orthodox are Oriental Orthodox, the phrase "dual wills" and "dual natures" are hard for us to accept without elaborate footnoting within the discussion, and while it doesn't seem that your professor was necessarily going Oriental Orthodox to affirm the fullness of the Unity (if anything it seems he was getting a bit typically heretical with the "Son of Grace" theology which asserts Christ either relinquished His Divinity to be come a man or was merely a man who became fully God but neither philosophies agree with the Orthodox Incarnation) I bring this up to mention that there is a bit of diversity of debate even amongst Orthodox theologians in this regard and if you cross-reference Patristics you can develop a rather complicated jigsaw. Quite truthfully it is perhaps only because you are at seminary that these protestants are even discussing the complexities of the Incarnation, many even well educated, scripturally founded, seminary educated preachers hardly delve into Orthodox theology aside from to criticise it as superstitious. You should than count your blessings that you even get these opportunities for discussion at your college experience, at a conventional university you'd be even more eccentric like I was having these same kinds of theological discussions in your classes.stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 02:34:49 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I'm still attempting to process what just happened to me in a class, so forgive me if I'm not explaining everything adequately.

I'm attending a Baptist seminary (not for the Mdiv, for their MA in Philosophy of Religion) where the professors have to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in addition to other stuff. They are held to this covenant. But apparently the covenant doesn't cover anything about the Incarnation...

In this class we ended up discussing St. Augustine's teaching on original sin in application to the Incarnation. Throughout the discussion, the professor hinted at some pretty nefarious things, so I went ahead and asked him point blank what he meant. He said, verbatim, "I deny the teaching of the dual wills of Christ and I have major problems with and do not accept the dual natures of Christ." Of course, I was shocked that in a place that values theologically correct professors that he was saying such at hint. What equally shocked me is that NO ONE in the class (some of whom are future pastors who are taking the class as an elective) saw a problem with this and/or didn't understand what was going on.

The prof said that via kenosis Christ emptied Himself of aspects of His divine nature, which explains why He was able to grow in knowledge, age, etc.

The thing is, I've seen this as a growing trend within certain Protestant circles. There seems to be a great ignorance on the Incarnation. That it's not infecting the academic level as a "conservative" seminary has left a sickening knot in my stomach.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and everything I've read on the Incarnation has been incorrect. I've read all the major works on the Incarnation from the Patristics and every single one seems to say that Christ has two natures and two wills (in fact, I interpreted St. Cyril of Jerusalem to kind of make this his main point). But maybe I've been wrong, maybe I've vastly misinterpreted all the teachings, everything I've heard in liturgy, and everything I've read. Of course, I mean this (somewhat) rhetorically, but being in a class full of people who didn't see an issue with what the professor said, I do have to wonder if I'm going a bit crazy.

I think I shall read some St. Athanasius for comfort...

A) Why would you necessarily expect anything even remotely Orthodox from a Baptist seminary? If your there for a degree, get your degree, but when I got my degree at university I hardly expected the history department to necessarily agree with my own interpretations of African history let alone for us to come to commonality in regards to Orthodox theology

Get your paperwork and like Ralph Nader politely include some substanse to the debates in class while never actually entirely throwing your hat in with those folks, if you're Orthodox you are there to witness our Faith, not necessarily to convert neither be converted.

B) I couldn't exactly agree with the exact phrasing of your professor either, however that is precisely why we Ethiopian Orthodox are Oriental Orthodox, the phrase "dual wills" and "dual natures" are hard for us to accept without elaborate footnoting within the discussion, and while it doesn't seem that your professor was necessarily going Oriental Orthodox to affirm the fullness of the Unity (if anything it seems he was getting a bit typically heretical with the "Son of Grace" theology which asserts Christ either relinquished His Divinity to be come a man or was merely a man who became fully God but neither philosophies agree with the Orthodox Incarnation) I bring this up to mention that there is a bit of diversity of debate even amongst Orthodox theologians in this regard and if you cross-reference Patristics you can develop a rather complicated jigsaw. Quite truthfully it is perhaps only because you are at seminary that these protestants are even discussing the complexities of the Incarnation, many even well educated, scripturally founded, seminary educated preachers hardly delve into Orthodox theology aside from to criticise it as superstitious. You should than count your blessings that you even get these opportunities for discussion at your college experience, at a conventional university you'd be even more eccentric like I was having these same kinds of theological discussions in your classes.stay blessed,habte selassie

The OP wasn't asking about OO beliefs about the Incarnation, and by your own admission it's highly unlikely the Baptist professor was meaning anything close to OO theology. Let's stay on topic.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Why would you necessarily expect anything even remotely Orthodox from a Baptist seminary? If your there for a degree, get your degree, but when I got my degree at university I hardly expected the history department to necessarily agree with my own interpretations of African history let alone for us to come to commonality in regards to Orthodox theology

...

Quite truthfully it is perhaps only because you are at seminary that these protestants are even discussing the complexities of the Incarnation, many even well educated, scripturally founded, seminary educated preachers hardly delve into Orthodox theology aside from to criticise it as superstitious. You should than count your blessings that you even get these opportunities for discussion at your college experience, at a conventional university you'd be even more eccentric like I was having these same kinds of theological discussions in your classes.

Two things I would say: the first is that Calcedonian Christology is common to all of Western Christianity, at least Catholics and normal Protestants. The radical reformation, well, not so much, and the Baptists are part of that. But, seriously, this stuff is, outside the OO, "orthodoxy" and not "Orthodoxy".

Yeah, it's weird how that happens, isn't it? In Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, William Lane Craig and JP Moreland actually call themselves monothelites! I'm hoping they mean it in some ahistorical, Orthodox compatible way but I haven't read too deeply in my copy.

I've also seen a Calvinist theologian friend of mine say he has little problem with Apolinarianism, though he's a physicalist about the human mind so it could be in that sense somehow. I wish I'd asked him to clarify at the time.

Yeah, it's weird how that happens, isn't it? In Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, William Lane Craig and JP Moreland actually call themselves monothelites! I'm hoping they mean it in some ahistorical, Orthodox compatible way but I haven't read too deeply in my copy.

I've also seen a Calvinist theologian friend of mine say he has little problem with Apolinarianism, though he's a physicalist about the human mind so it could be in that sense somehow. I wish I'd asked him to clarify at the time.

Monothelitism was a good start at Ecumenism, it got the Oriental side to acknowledge "two" in their language and got the Eastern Orthodox to reemphasize "one" in theirs, it really shouldn't have been condemned, however I am OO, we would disagree with the "two" part too much but in premise monothelitism realistically is the Miaphysite, Oriental Orthodox explanation of the One unified Will of Christ which we profess.For those who think this is getting off-topic I would disagree, this is a discussion about Protestant philosophies of the Incarnation, which at times overlap both within Oriental and Eastern Orthodox perspectives, and so at these mutual intersections it is appropriate to expand the discussion with background information of each other. Further, I think that EO theology is sophisticated enough for folks here to be able to have a discussion that includes points raised by both Protestants and correlating OO (such as Monothelitism as other posters here thoughtfully brought up) with it getting necessarily polemic as much as informative. The very purpose of OO or even Protestantism is to ask these kinds of fundamental questions, and EO if in disagreement is obligated to respond without necesssirly getting defensive Now to get back to Dr Craig..http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6606

Quote

Question:

Hi Dr Craig!

I've been reading your Philosophical Foundation for a Christian Worldview. Unfortunately, my question was not dealt with when I was in seminary when I was taking MDiv a decade ago. With your explanation, I am more convinced of your position of monotheletism (pg. 611) though tentatively. Monotheletism is always linked with monophysitism. As far as I understand, monotheletism does not necessarily follow from monophysitism. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned both monophysitism and monothelitism as heretic. (Do most evangelicals recognize this ecumenical council?) Dr. Norm Geisler also recognize monothelitism as heretical (Systematic Theology Volume 2: God, Creation, [Grand Rppids, MI: BethanyHouse, 2003] pg. 296). My question is, are you not concerned that some evangelicals consider you as heretic for your belief on monotheletism? Since I am more convinced of your explanation, I do not want to be considered as a heretic too for taking this stance.

Dr. Craig responds:

No earnest Christian wants to be considered a heretic. But we Protestants recognize Scripture alone as our ultimate rule of faith (the Reformation principle of sola scriptura). Therefore, we bring even the statements of Ecumenical Councils before the bar of Scripture. While one disagrees with the promulgations of an Ecumenical Council only with great hesitancy, nonetheless, since we do not regard these as invested with divine authority, we are open to the possibility that they have erred in places. It seems to me that in condemning Monotheletism as incompatible with Christian belief the Church did overstep its bounds.

What is Monotheletism? It is the doctrine that the incarnate Christ has a single faculty of will. By contrast Dyotheletism teaches that the incarnate Christ has two faculties of will, one associated with his human nature (his human will) and one associated with his divine nature (his divine will). The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Monotheletism, promulgating as obligatory for Christians belief in two wills in Christ. I suspect that most evangelical Christians give allegiance with their lips to the Third Council and Dyotheletism but haven't really reflected seriously on it.

Some of us, however, consider Monotheletism to be at least a legitimate option for a biblical Christian, not to say to be true. The Council apparently thought that denying a human will to Christ would imply that he lacked a complete human nature, so that Christ was not truly man. Therefore, to safeguard the integrity of Christ's human nature, the Council promulgated Dyotheletism as mandatory for orthodox Christian belief. Now the Council's concern for the true humanity of Christ incarnate is laudable and important. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation does require that Christ be truly human and truly divine. But why think that Christ's having a single will truncates his human nature?

What the Council presupposed and what seems dubious to many is that the faculty of will belongs properly to one's nature rather than to one's person. That's why the Council thought that if Christ's human nature lacked the faculty of will, it was not a true, complete human nature. By contrast, it seems to me almost obvious that the will is a faculty of a person. It is persons who have free will and exercise it to choose this or that. If Christ's human nature had its own proper will so that Christ had literally two wills, as the Council affirmed, then there would be two persons, one human and one divine. But that is the heresy known as Nestorianism, which divides Christ's person into two. I cannot understand how Christ's human nature could have a will of its own, distinct from the will of the Second Person of the Trinity, and not be a person.

The question, then, is whether Christ can have one will and yet two natures. Or does having a single will imply the heresy called Monophysitism, the doctrine that Christ has a single nature? At the Council of Chalcedon, the Church condemned Monophysitism and promulgated Dyophysitism, the doctrine that Christ has two natures, human and divine. The question is not, as you have it, whether Monotheletism follows necessarily from Monophysitism--it seems obvious that it does, for if there is only one person and one nature in the incarnate Christ, where would the second will come from?--, but whether Monophysitism follows necessarily from Monotheletism, as the Council thought.

I don't see that it does. In the chapter on the incarnation in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, I provide a possible model of the incarnation according to which the human nature of Christ becomes complete through its union with the Second Person of the Trinity. Because there is only one person in Christ, there is but one faculty of will, and that faculty serves both the humanity and deity of Christ, exercising itself through both the human nature and the divine nature. So Christ has two complete natures but a single will, just as--and because--he is a single person.

So while I don't like contradicting the decrees of an ecumenical Council, I think that the danger of falling into Nestorianism is far greater than the danger of falling into Monophysitism. I think we can coherently and biblically be Monothelites without being Monophysites.

Saint Severus of Antioch couldn't have said it better

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 03:42:05 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Monothelitism was a good start at Ecumenism, it got the Oriental side to acknowledge "two" in their language and got the Eastern Orthodox to reemphasize "one" in theirs, it really shouldn't have been condemned, however I am OO, we would disagree with the "two" part too much but in premise monothelitism realistically is the Miaphysite, Oriental Orthodox explanation of the One unified Will of Christ which we profess.

Frankly, I'm not convinced you're even a very good expositor of what OOs believe.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

If will is not an aspect of nature, but of personhood, the statement "I will this or that" is meaningless.

If will is not an aspect of nature, but of personhood, how do you make sense of Jesus' words "not my will, but thy will"?

Are there 3 Divine wills? Is the will of the Son a different will than that of the Father? Can they disagree?

Ask yourself, could God make an hypostasis without a will? Then ask, could God make a human hypostasis without a will? As I see it the answer to the second question is clearly no, while the answer to the first question is theoretically yes, which shows that will is not an aspect of hypostasis, but of certain natures, such as Divine, angelic, and human.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

5. Protestants bring all doctrinal statements, even Conciliar creeds, before the bar of Scripture. In this case one has to say honestly that nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that God the Son is begotten of the Father in His divine, rather than in merely His human, nature. The vast majority of contemporary New Testament scholars recognize that even if the word traditionally translated “only-begotten” (monogenes) carries a connotation of derivation when used in familial contexts--as opposed to meaning merely “unique” or “one of a kind” as many scholars maintain--nevertheless the biblical references to Christ as monogenes (John 1.1, 14, 18; cf. Revelation 9.13)do not contemplatesome pre-creation or eternal procession of the divine Son from the Father, but have to do with the historical Jesus’ being God’s special Son (Matthew 1.21-23; Luke 1-35; John 1.14, 34; Galalatians 4.4; Hebrews 1.5-6). I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. This primitive understanding of Christ’s being begotten is still evident in Ignatius’s description of Christ as “one Physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and unbegotten, . . . both of Mary and of God” (Ephesians 7). There is here no idea that Christ is begotten in his divine nature. Indeed, the transference by the Apologists of Christ’s Sonship from Jesus of Nazareth to the pre-incarnate Logos has helped to depreciate the importance of the historical Jesus for Christian faith.

Yeah, it's weird how that happens, isn't it? In Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, William Lane Craig and JP Moreland actually call themselves monothelites! I'm hoping they mean it in some ahistorical, Orthodox compatible way but I haven't read too deeply in my copy.

I've also seen a Calvinist theologian friend of mine say he has little problem with Apolinarianism, though he's a physicalist about the human mind so it could be in that sense somehow. I wish I'd asked him to clarify at the time.

Monothelitism was a good start at Ecumenism, it got the Oriental side to acknowledge "two" in their language and got the Eastern Orthodox to reemphasize "one" in theirs, it really shouldn't have been condemned, however I am OO, we would disagree with the "two" part too much but in premise monothelitism realistically is the Miaphysite, Oriental Orthodox explanation of the One unified Will of Christ which we profess.For those who think this is getting off-topic I would disagree, this is a discussion about Protestant philosophies of the Incarnation, which at times overlap both within Oriental and Eastern Orthodox perspectives, and so at these mutual intersections it is appropriate to expand the discussion with background information of each other. Further, I think that EO theology is sophisticated enough for folks here to be able to have a discussion that includes points raised by both Protestants and correlating OO (such as Monothelitism as other posters here thoughtfully brought up) with it getting necessarily polemic as much as informative. The very purpose of OO or even Protestantism is to ask these kinds of fundamental questions, and EO if in disagreement is obligated to respond without necesssirly getting defensive Now to get back to Dr Craig..http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6606

Quote

Question:

Hi Dr Craig!

I've been reading your Philosophical Foundation for a Christian Worldview. Unfortunately, my question was not dealt with when I was in seminary when I was taking MDiv a decade ago. With your explanation, I am more convinced of your position of monotheletism (pg. 611) though tentatively. Monotheletism is always linked with monophysitism. As far as I understand, monotheletism does not necessarily follow from monophysitism. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned both monophysitism and monothelitism as heretic. (Do most evangelicals recognize this ecumenical council?) Dr. Norm Geisler also recognize monothelitism as heretical (Systematic Theology Volume 2: God, Creation, [Grand Rppids, MI: BethanyHouse, 2003] pg. 296). My question is, are you not concerned that some evangelicals consider you as heretic for your belief on monotheletism? Since I am more convinced of your explanation, I do not want to be considered as a heretic too for taking this stance.

Dr. Craig responds:

No earnest Christian wants to be considered a heretic. But we Protestants recognize Scripture alone as our ultimate rule of faith (the Reformation principle of sola scriptura). Therefore, we bring even the statements of Ecumenical Councils before the bar of Scripture. While one disagrees with the promulgations of an Ecumenical Council only with great hesitancy, nonetheless, since we do not regard these as invested with divine authority, we are open to the possibility that they have erred in places. It seems to me that in condemning Monotheletism as incompatible with Christian belief the Church did overstep its bounds.

What is Monotheletism? It is the doctrine that the incarnate Christ has a single faculty of will. By contrast Dyotheletism teaches that the incarnate Christ has two faculties of will, one associated with his human nature (his human will) and one associated with his divine nature (his divine will). The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Monotheletism, promulgating as obligatory for Christians belief in two wills in Christ. I suspect that most evangelical Christians give allegiance with their lips to the Third Council and Dyotheletism but haven't really reflected seriously on it.

Some of us, however, consider Monotheletism to be at least a legitimate option for a biblical Christian, not to say to be true. The Council apparently thought that denying a human will to Christ would imply that he lacked a complete human nature, so that Christ was not truly man. Therefore, to safeguard the integrity of Christ's human nature, the Council promulgated Dyotheletism as mandatory for orthodox Christian belief. Now the Council's concern for the true humanity of Christ incarnate is laudable and important. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation does require that Christ be truly human and truly divine. But why think that Christ's having a single will truncates his human nature?

What the Council presupposed and what seems dubious to many is that the faculty of will belongs properly to one's nature rather than to one's person. That's why the Council thought that if Christ's human nature lacked the faculty of will, it was not a true, complete human nature. By contrast, it seems to me almost obvious that the will is a faculty of a person. It is persons who have free will and exercise it to choose this or that. If Christ's human nature had its own proper will so that Christ had literally two wills, as the Council affirmed, then there would be two persons, one human and one divine. But that is the heresy known as Nestorianism, which divides Christ's person into two. I cannot understand how Christ's human nature could have a will of its own, distinct from the will of the Second Person of the Trinity, and not be a person.

The question, then, is whether Christ can have one will and yet two natures. Or does having a single will imply the heresy called Monophysitism, the doctrine that Christ has a single nature? At the Council of Chalcedon, the Church condemned Monophysitism and promulgated Dyophysitism, the doctrine that Christ has two natures, human and divine. The question is not, as you have it, whether Monotheletism follows necessarily from Monophysitism--it seems obvious that it does, for if there is only one person and one nature in the incarnate Christ, where would the second will come from?--, but whether Monophysitism follows necessarily from Monotheletism, as the Council thought.

I don't see that it does. In the chapter on the incarnation in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, I provide a possible model of the incarnation according to which the human nature of Christ becomes complete through its union with the Second Person of the Trinity. Because there is only one person in Christ, there is but one faculty of will, and that faculty serves both the humanity and deity of Christ, exercising itself through both the human nature and the divine nature. So Christ has two complete natures but a single will, just as--and because--he is a single person.

So while I don't like contradicting the decrees of an ecumenical Council, I think that the danger of falling into Nestorianism is far greater than the danger of falling into Monophysitism. I think we can coherently and biblically be Monothelites without being Monophysites.

Saint Severus of Antioch couldn't have said it better

stay blessed,habte selassie

I think you bring some good points to this discussion, and I support your attempts to bring them up.

The following is excerpted from a good response, from a RC perspective, to Dr. Craig's attempt to defend his monothelitism with a ludicrous appeal to sola scriptura (see reply #8 above).

Quote

Dr. Craig did not, however (unfortunately and ironically), provide even a single Bible passage in his reply, to back up his case. If he appeals to the principle of sola Scriptura, it would seem sensible that he would try to produce at least some Scripture in favor of his position, since he specifically has appealed to Scripture over against ecumenical councils.

Perhaps the most important verse Armstrong brings up is Matthew 26:39 (RSV)

Quote

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Notice our Lord says "not as I will". "I" is a person, an hypostasis, which we all (OOs, EOs, RCs, and most Protestants) agree is a Divine person/hypostasis, namely, the Logos. So why would the Logos be in disagreement with the Father? Presumably, even if we granted that will is hypostatic and not natural, thus meaning there are 3 wills in the Trinity, the will of the Father and the will of His Son would always be in agreement. But here Jesus clearly indicates that He has a will which is not necessarily in agreement with the Father's. ISTM, the simplest explanation for "I will" in this case is that the Logos (the "I"), a Divine hypostasis, is exercising a non-Divine, human will, part of His human nature.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 05:57:38 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

I'm still attempting to process what just happened to me in a class, so forgive me if I'm not explaining everything adequately.

I'm attending a Baptist seminary (not for the Mdiv, for their MA in Philosophy of Religion) where the professors have to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in addition to other stuff. They are held to this covenant. But apparently the covenant doesn't cover anything about the Incarnation...

In this class we ended up discussing St. Augustine's teaching on original sin in application to the Incarnation. Throughout the discussion, the professor hinted at some pretty nefarious things, so I went ahead and asked him point blank what he meant. He said, verbatim, "I deny the teaching of the dual wills of Christ and I have major problems with and do not accept the dual natures of Christ." Of course, I was shocked that in a place that values theologically correct professors that he was saying such at hint. What equally shocked me is that NO ONE in the class (some of whom are future pastors who are taking the class as an elective) saw a problem with this and/or didn't understand what was going on.

The prof said that via kenosis Christ emptied Himself of aspects of His divine nature, which explains why He was able to grow in knowledge, age, etc.

The thing is, I've seen this as a growing trend within certain Protestant circles. There seems to be a great ignorance on the Incarnation. That it's not infecting the academic level as a "conservative" seminary has left a sickening knot in my stomach.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and everything I've read on the Incarnation has been incorrect. I've read all the major works on the Incarnation from the Patristics and every single one seems to say that Christ has two natures and two wills (in fact, I interpreted St. Cyril of Jerusalem to kind of make this his main point). But maybe I've been wrong, maybe I've vastly misinterpreted all the teachings, everything I've heard in liturgy, and everything I've read. Of course, I mean this (somewhat) rhetorically, but being in a class full of people who didn't see an issue with what the professor said, I do have to wonder if I'm going a bit crazy.

I think I shall read some St. Athanasius for comfort...

In another thread, our resident Baptist pastor, Mr David Young, expressed his dismay that certain churches, in their list of beliefs, put sola scriptura as number one while their Christological doctrines come somewhere further down the list -- maybe eight or ten.

Nothing about Baptists surprises me any more, though I must say Pastor David is a credit to them.

Monothelitism was a good start at Ecumenism, it got the Oriental side to acknowledge "two" in their language and got the Eastern Orthodox to reemphasize "one" in theirs, it really shouldn't have been condemned, however I am OO, we would disagree with the "two" part too much but in premise monothelitism realistically is the Miaphysite, Oriental Orthodox explanation of the One unified Will of Christ which we profess.

Monothelitism does not profess one unified will, it professes one will that is not even really a part of nature itself. It is heretical in both Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologies. It was an error.

As for the OP, Both the EO and OO agree that the Logos did not mutilate his Divine Nature in some way during the incarnation to "render himself capable of improvement" or whatever. Your professor is off the wall under both Christologies; Christ didn't have to mutilate His Divine Nature to be able to grow and learn unless you accept strange notions about the inabilities of the Divine Nature.

Monothelitism was a good start at Ecumenism, it got the Oriental side to acknowledge "two" in their language and got the Eastern Orthodox to reemphasize "one" in theirs, it really shouldn't have been condemned, however I am OO, we would disagree with the "two" part too much but in premise monothelitism realistically is the Miaphysite, Oriental Orthodox explanation of the One unified Will of Christ which we profess.

Many things to respond to, but let me go in order of things on my mind:

First - I really appreciate Habte's posts. As good as they are - and as appropriate as they are (as they aid in my understanding of OO and the potential that the prof may be expressing beliefs similar to OO) - sadly I'm afraid the prof is no where close. I emailed him and asked him to clarify, to which he essentially said that the Incarnation was a fusion of the Divine with the human element and that the person of Christ took on a human body (no human soul, will, etc). While I plead ignorance at what the OO, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this is no where close to what the OO believe.

Second - I know that some may want to chalk this up to being a seminary thing and I do see some truth to that. It seems the lay people I talk to about this just get a, "Really? What about fully God and fully man doesn't he understand" look on their faces. However, these lay people are older and grew up during a time when this theology tended to be emphasized (at least more than it is now). What is bothersome is younger people and others who are going to be future pastors/missionaries seemingly don't have a problem with this belief. If history has shown us anything it's that where the educated go in a movement, the movement will soon follow. This worries me.

Third - Habte, your advice on being a witness hit home. While I wasn't combative, I certainly didn't handle the situation in grace or with patience, partially because I was so taken off guard. Regardless, I feel I was a bad witness and hope to improve that. Sadly, even I am not immune to that "convert zeal" that I thought I could avoid.

Fourth - if David Young had been my pastor as I grew up Baptist I probably never would have even thought to look at Orthodoxy (I mean that as a compliment to him, because I've read his posts and it's obvious to me that he's a man worthy of respect). It was bad experiences and working for some Orthodox owners that pointed me in the direction of Orthodoxy (honestly, I was about to give up on church when I got the job at a specific place where the owners were Orthodox and a co-worker had graduated from Holy Cross and was waiting to take his vows...not to sound like a Calvinist, but that does seem providential). Events such as this merely confirm that I am heading in the right direction.

Thank you all for letting me vent.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Also, I should add that Bill Craig as a philosopher is pretty good. As a theologian he's "meh." The problem with Craig, Moreland, and others is they don't like to accept mystery. They see it as a cop-out. Thus, they have no problem cutting corners and saying it's all in the name of Scripture.

Personally, I think they do this to find acceptance among the general philosophic community, and while they're respected, they're also reviled a bit. Ironically enough, it is the Orthodox philosophers who have no problem with mystery who have wide acceptance within the community (Swinburne, Englehardt, and others...even Most Reverend Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is respected by some of my non-Christian friends and acquaintances).

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Also, I should add that Bill Craig as a philosopher is pretty good. As a theologian he's "meh." The problem with Craig, Moreland, and others is they don't like to accept mystery. They see it as a cop-out. Thus, they have no problem cutting corners and saying it's all in the name of Scripture.

Just to add some more to this story, the professor clarified his position today.

He brought up Appollinarianism and said the only problem he had with the teaching was that it was try-part concerning man (body, soul, and spirit). His explanation is that he doesn't agree that Jesus had a human body and human soul (but lacked a spirit as Appollinaris taught), rather he (the professor) believes that Jesus had a human body, but the soul was divine.

Also, all professors are supposed to sign a doctrinal covenant (a creed without the title). In this covenant they affirm the two natures and two wills of Christ. Thus, the professor is apparently in violation of a document that he signed. However, no one around here seems to care...

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Just to add some more to this story, the professor clarified his position today.

He brought up Appollinarianism and said the only problem he had with the teaching was that it was try-part concerning man (body, soul, and spirit). His explanation is that he doesn't agree that Jesus had a human body and human soul (but lacked a spirit as Appollinaris taught), rather he (the professor) believes that Jesus had a human body, but the soul was divine.

Just to add some more to this story, the professor clarified his position today.

He brought up Appollinarianism and said the only problem he had with the teaching was that it was try-part concerning man (body, soul, and spirit). His explanation is that he doesn't agree that Jesus had a human body and human soul (but lacked a spirit as Appollinaris taught), rather he (the professor) believes that Jesus had a human body, but the soul was divine.

Is that even true? I thought most of the early church was dipartite and that Apollinarius taught Jesus had only a "lower soul" a la Platonism.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Monothelitism, but also folks should carefully not my specific language which said "in premise" and not necessarily in the doctrinal versions proposed at the time. The premise the the Two Natures of Christ (already a hard way to phrase it in OO) have One Will is precisely the way I understand OO Christology. If that is NOT Monothelitism my mistake, I have not read deeply the various formulas of monothelitism proposed int he 7Th century, rather I am just making inferences which seem to be incorrect, and for that my mistake

In the Ethiopian Orthodox Christology, "Since Christ is one united nature from two natures, He has ONE operation and ONE will. But all the activities belong to the ONE Lord (the Incarnate Logos), and so the human and divine acts should not be considered as two different operations. As there is one operation in the Incarnate Logos, there is also One will." Kesis Mebratu Miaphysite Christology (of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church).

Saint Severus of Antioch writes, "There is only one single activity (energia), one one single operative motion (motus operativus), as there is only one single speaking of the Incarnate Logos." III Oration chapter 38

Now I may not fully understand the monothelitism which was proposed by the Byzantines, but the formulas initially accepted in Armenia and Alexandria and Antioch seem to me to agree with the current Miaphysite Christology of One Operation, One Will in the Hypostatic Union of Christ. Also my points about the success of the debates, whether the doctrine or formulas were ultimately accepted or anathematized is irrelevant to the impact and effect the dialgouges, discussions, and debates between the various jurisdictions which occurred as a result of the monothelitism proposals. This is historically significant, and the the Churches were very close to reunion at that time if not for a few personalities disagreeing in the obvious Grace of God.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 09:03:34 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Just to add some more to this story, the professor clarified his position today.

He brought up Appollinarianism and said the only problem he had with the teaching was that it was try-part concerning man (body, soul, and spirit). His explanation is that he doesn't agree that Jesus had a human body and human soul (but lacked a spirit as Appollinaris taught), rather he (the professor) believes that Jesus had a human body, but the soul was divine.

Also, all professors are supposed to sign a doctrinal covenant (a creed without the title). In this covenant they affirm the two natures and two wills of Christ. Thus, the professor is apparently in violation of a document that he signed. However, no one around here seems to care...

Very strange stuff. But this is the fruit of Protestantism. Each person decides for himself what he believes.